A lot has been made of the contents of the email correspondence between Opposition leader Joseph Muscat and RTK journalist Sabrina Agius.

But, frankly, having read the emails, I do not think that is the most important aspect of this whole incident.  Yes, Ms Agius was foolish to put such things in writing, but I hardly think she is the only journalist who has ever been on such familiar terms with a politician.

I’m not saying that it’s right (I prefer to keep politicians at an arm’s length myself), I’m just pointing out that it happens more often than the general public might be aware of. She is also not the first ambitious journalist who has harboured aspirations for a political career, allowing her personal political beliefs to dent her credibility and professionalism in the process. Here, once again, while disagreeing with this practice, I have to mentally shrug – it happens.

One day perhaps I should make a list of all the former journalists who became communications co-ordinators with Ministers and Parliamentary Secretaries.

What did strike me, however, was the fact that, apparently, Sabrina’s private emails were printed out by a colleague who sat at her desk, rifled through her gmail account, stumbled upon this ‘evidence’ and carried out the dirty deed.

Of course, I use the term ‘colleague’ loosely, for (if this is what really happened) how can you truly be a colleague and do something like that to a person who works with you every day in the newsroom?  Actually, having just typed out this last sentence, I am laughing wryly and chiding myself for being naive. Backstabbing, or as we eloquently describe it in Maltese, gakkbinar, happens daily across workplaces all over the country. If I had to take a straw poll of just my friends and acquaintances I am sure I would find that most of them have been at the receiving end of a stab in the back or ten.

In this case, apart from the astounding lack of ethics, there are the legal repercussions of the actions of this so-called colleague, as clearly explained by lawyer Jacques René Zammit in his blog. Again, I stress, if this is what happened, as we cannot be sure.

But legalities apart, what we have here is just one example of the dog eat dog atmosphere which exists not just in the media, but at most places of work. I don’t think it’s a coincidence that the colloquial expression also refers to dogs – ghal kull ghadma hawn mitt kelb (there are 100 dogs for every bone).

Because of the dearth of good job opportunities, Malta has always been susceptible to this ruthless type of behaviour – one needs a thick skin, a wary disposition and the ability to negotiate the inevitable office politics to survive. Whenever I hear about these kinds of stories I always come to the same conclusion: no wonder Malta is not as productive as it should be, when so much time and negative energy is wasted on trying to tear others down, rather than actually getting on with one’s work.

The problem, as I see it, is that these employees who are so desperate to curry favour with the management that they turn on their own colleagues continue, for some reason, to be trusted. I find that extremely odd from the point of view of good management. Speaking from experience as a former manager, I was always highly uncomfortable when a member of staff would be so eager to badmouth his own colleague.  It certainly did not give me a very good opinion of the person doing the badmouthing.

There is another crucial point. If the speculation is true and this RTK ‘colleague’ did not think twice about spying on Sabrina’s computer, and printing out emails from her private account, clearly this person has a problem in distinguishing between ethical and unethical behaviour.  Ironic, considering his employer is the Church, which (I would think) preaches the importance and value of ethics.

The more I ponder this, the more perplexed I become. When people work for the same organization, presumably they are meant to be pulling the same rope, and that includes a certain amount of solidarity and togetherness for the same cause. In my view, that cause should be to make that company the best that it can be, in order to effectively compete in the market. For this reason, I have never been able to understand why in so many companies the infighting and tripping up of each other seems to overshadow everything else. Even more puzzling is why this unseemly behaviour is not quickly nipped in the bud by management.

I wonder, for example, what the atmosphere must be like right now in the RTK newsroom, with all the accusations and speculation being bandied about. Is the staff in that newsroom doing its best work right now, or is everyone tied up in knots of anxiety lest their behaviour is called into question?

How can that newsroom possibly function at its optimum best when such a dark shadow of hostility and suspicion has been cast over it? Journalists work long hours, and when one spends as much time with colleagues as they do, the other members of staff become like a second family. They are supposed to have each other’s back, look out for each other, even fill in for each other when circumstances so dictate. In an ideal situation, there is such a spirit of camaraderie that the trust is implicit.

But consider a family where the trust has been broken – it ceases to be united, and everyone starts fending for himself with scant respect for the others. When it comes to breaking point, family members actually do end up going their separate ways.

But at work, there is no easy escape from this kind of dysfunctional environment day in day out. The only way out is to quit and find something else, but (no matter what anyone says) this economy does not exactly provide the right climate for finding a new job. And, in any case, who is to say you don’t land in a different office or workplace where the environment is the same, or quite possibly, even worse?

In the end, most people just put up with it, because they simply don’t have a choice.